A POLICE officer who can’t testify in court to get criminals off the street is like a sanitation worker who can’t empty garbage cans.

Such a public employee seems useless.

This week, it was reported that federal and state prosecutors are refusing to prosecute any cases involving two Savannah-Chatham police officers. One officer formerly worked drug cases for the countywide Counter Narcotics Team, but is now assigned to the Islands Precinct. The other is a crime prevention officer with Central Precinct.

Neither U.S. Attorney Ed Tarver nor Chatham County District Attorney Meg Heap would explain their reasons, other than to suggest that the two officers have credibility problems.

Why? They wouldn’t say.

Neither would the officers’ boss, Metro Police Chief Willie Lovett. Neither would City Attorney Brooks Stillwell, who said Thursday that he’s aware of the matter and “is researching it,” but hasn’t finished his inquiry.

Everyone is entitled to their day in court. Including cops. But when it comes to credibility, law enforcement officers who have arrest powers and have taken oaths to protect and serve the public are held to higher standards than the average person on the street.

Again, it’s unclear what these officers did to merit the cold shoulder from local prosecutors. But if Mr. Tarver and Ms. Heap believe that their court cases would be tainted if these officers were involved, then it must be something more serious than fudging about their weight.

Coincidentally, the September online issue of Police Chief magazine has a lengthy article about police officer truthfulness and a key court ruling: The Brady decision.

In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the defense has a right to examine all evidence that may be of an exculpatory nature in a criminal case. According to the magazine, recent Supreme Court decisions have enforced Brady to include evidence maintained in a police officer’s personnel files. Thus if an officer has been written up for lying, the defense would be entitled to that information. Depending on what that information is, it could pose problems for prosecutors if a judge allows it to be presented.

“Today many police executives have recognized the importance of officer credibility and have established a ‘No Lies’ proclamation,” writes Jeff Noble, who’s the commander of the Irvine, Calif., Police Department.

“As simple as ‘No Lies’ sounds, it is far more complex and difficult to manage. Lies are not a fixed target; rather, deception exists on a continuum, from what is commonly called social lies or little white lies to egregious misconduct that warrants dismissal or prosecution.

“The true challenge is in dealing with deceptive conduct that lies somewhere in the middle of the continuum — not so far on one end of the continuum for termination and not far enough toward the other end of the continuum to be justifiable or excusable.”

He writes, for example, that police officers frequently engage in a “significant” amount of deceptive conduct that is essential to public safety, such as lying to suspects to gain critical information that might not be available through other means.

But deceptive and intentional action in a formal setting, such as testifying in court or during an internal affairs investigation, is taboo. The author writes that such acts will “permanently” destroy and officer’s credibility, which leaves “no alternative in an employment context other than termination or permanent removal” from any possible activities where that officer could be called to testify.

It’s unclear what policies that Metro police have regarding deceptive conduct. But the rules must be clear, with the chief having some discretion.

Given the Brady decision, such discretion must include the ability to punish inappropriate behavior. It also means realizing that once an officer’s credibility is shot, it’s probably shot forever.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

in Brady vs Us , the prosecutor or any other officer of the court is required by law to show any evidence in their possesion to the court that shows that the defendant is innocent ! the defendant can be charged with perjury for lieing to the court , the officer of the court only got his facts wrong ! actual response from Federal Prosecutor " the evidence that proves the defendant is innocent of all the charges he has been charged with , were presented in discovery , therefore the defendant has provided no new evidence " and the judge agreed !!!

Somehow SMN carried on or limped along nicely before Leslie Conn came on the scene. She came, she wrote, she did her hitch and now she moved on. Her name is invoked now and then on these forums to the point that her leaving SMN is treated like a death in the family. There are still journalism schools in existence, perhaps those lamenting Leslie can do something in her honor, contact these schools and see if they will direct their graduates in the direction of Savannah. The more appropriate roles for Midtown Mojo and Sugar Kitty is that of "muckrakers." They appear to enjoy themselves carrying out the task via these forums. Now about these cops, although not named in the editorial, the story came out in the news section of this paper so everybody knows who they are. The same police chief and district attorney who were at a press conference tooting their horns about blowing the covers off of a street gang are now mute regarding this matter. Time will tell whether their condition is benign or malignant.

"If Amber Deloach was "black" and some white boys raped, strangled and set her on fire in the trunk of a car in a white neighborhood, they'd be marching in the streets."

Sugar Kitty's statement was nothing about "race baiting" - it's just a true statement of facts. Compare the hoopla over Trayvon Martin who was not an innocent baby sleeping in his stroller in Brunswick, nor an Australian exchange student out for a run in Oklahoma, nor an elderly WWII vet beaten to death. Where was the Rev. Al? Where was Jesse Jackson? Where were the group that held their rally in downtown Savannah for Trayvon? Where were all of them when Antonio Santiago, Christopher Lane or Delbert Belton were killed?

It's time we stopped pushing black on white crime under the rug - it's real and the hypocrisy of the hootin' an hollerin' over the death of a thug in training or even worse over the trumped up claims of someone like Tawana Brawley and then complete silence when a horrific crime is committed by a black person. Just accept the truth and stop your ranting.

And Wilfong was nothing but a race-baiting old fool who didn't even warrant a kind word about him after his demise - by the way - the same week Ben Tucker died. Just compare the outpouring of love for Mr. Tucker with the lack of a word being mentioned about Wilfong. In the end, people remember your life's work and honor those who deserve it and forget about those who don't.